Dismissed

R.P Choudhari (Huf) v. Suresh Jain S/O Ramchandra Ji Jain

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2021CW/4259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ intervention against an order directing the return of an original document to an applicant in concluded arbitration. While alleging forgery in a separate police FIR, the petitioner was not a party to the arbitration. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus to approach the trial judge and dismissed the petition, suggesting he pursue the matter before the appointed arbitrat

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach the concerned arbitrator.

R.P Choudhari (Huf) Vs Suresh Jain S/O Ramchandra Ji Jain — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4259/2021

¶3

R.p Choudhari (Huf), Through Its Karta Shri Ram Prakash Choudhari, R/o 803 Merry Home, Plot No. 3B-1 Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Suresh Jain S/o Ramchandra Ji Jain, Prop. Sunrise Builders Reg. Office 301-306, 3Rd Floor, Sunrise Complex, J-54C, Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶7

Shrimati Snehlata Surana W/o Kamalchand Surana, R/o Flat No. 303, Iiird Floor, Merry Home, 3-B-Ist Govind Marg, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur.

¶8

Shri Kamalchand Surana, R/o Flat No. 303, Iiird Floor, Merry Home, 3-B-Ist Govind Marg, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitab Jatav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

16/08/2021

¶14

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 04.03.2021 passed on an application moved under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC by the applicant-Suresh Chand Jain in arbitration proceedings which stood concluded before the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metro-I bearing No.385/2012. The application was allowed and the original document was handed over back to the concerned applicant with the directions to keep the certified copy of the said document on record.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-4259/2021]

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had lodged an FIR No.258/2015 before the Police Station Moti Doongri, Jaipur alleging therein that the document which was produced as an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents was forged and therefore, he moved an application in the said case. Said arbitration case is pending before Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metro-I praying that the alleged forged document ought not be handed over back to the respondent-applicant but should be handed over to the concerned police authorities who were conducting investigation in the FIR registered by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the FIR would stand frustrated if the document is handed over back to the respondent who is an accused of having forged document.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that in the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner was not a party and he therefore, has no locus to move an application before the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur MetroI. On the other hand the applicant-respondent No.1 was entitled to move application under Order 13 Rule 9 CPC to seek original document back from the suit and his application has been rightly allowed.

¶19

Learned counsel further submits that in the FIR, a final report has already been submitted by the police against which, a protest petition has been filed by the petitioner and the proceedings in the criminal case are totally separate from the arbitration proceedings which stood concluded before the concerned Additional District Judge. He has also pointed out that the petitioner has moved an application seeking arbitration proceedings against the respondent before this Court and this

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CW-4259/2021]

¶22

Court has already appointed an Arbitrator who is seized with the matter.

¶23

I have considered the submissions.

¶24

Taking into consideration aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the petitioner is a stranger to the arbitration proceedings which were disposed of by the Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metro-I. Thus, he has no locus to move an application for directing the learned Judge to send the document to the police for investigation after the arbitration proceedings stood concluded. The order dated 04.03.2021 therefore, does not warrant any interference. It is also noticed that the arbitration proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent are already pending before the concerned arbitrator and therefore, it is best to leave for the petitioner to take whatever steps he may take before the concerned Arbitrator.

¶25

Leaving it open for the petitioner as above, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶26

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶27

SAURABH YADAV /670/2

R.P Choudhari (Huf) v. Suresh Jain S/O Ramchandra Ji Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.P Choudhari (Huf) v. Suresh Jain S/O Ramchandra Ji Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nami Kumar Jain S/O. Shri Ishwarlal Jain Vs Amit Kumar Kotawala S/O. Shri Pramod Kumar Kotawala

Julekha Bano Wife of Late Nasrudeen, Vs Murari Lal S/O Girdhari Lal

Ramdhan Son of Dharu Vs Parbhati Son of Ramsukh

Managing Committee Vs Bajrang Lal Saini S/O Late Shri Ganpatram Saini

M/S Galaxy Mining and Royalties Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Galaxy Mining Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan